I *think* I caught them all, since I came via http://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm and the prepared Overpass turbo query from there...

Ciao

In this changeset you introduced ways with completely undocumented tags, i.e. way/949360890

Can you explain those a bit?

Ciao!

In this changeset you introduced some new tags, like
---
health_level=8
is_in_health_level6=Adja
---

Can you explain those and link to a documentation of your import?

Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

PS: I came here from http://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm

Ciao Bert
I corrected your typo 'raze:building' to 'razed:building' in changeset changeset/105833136

Have a good day,
Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

Falscher Kommentar 🤪
Ich wollte meinen, dass see Veloladen im anderen Genäude ist.

> disused:shop=yes

Das macht sehr Sinn, werde ich in Zukunft auch so machen.

Ciao dafadllyn

Gestern bin ich an der Ecke Christoffelgasse/Bundesgasse durchgefahren und hab' gesehen, dass im Bettenladen neu so ein SchönheitsSalonDings drin ist.
Da wollte ich ein Update machen, hab' den Node aber nicht mehr gefunden, weil du den gelöscht hast :)

Um ganz pingelig zu sein; wenn ein Laden nicht mehr da ist, ist es cool, diesen nicht einfach zu löschen, sondern in einen `shop=vacant` umzuwandeln, damit evtl. ein neuer Laden darin wieder auf denselben Node getaggt werden kann, im Sinne von 'keep the history': osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Ich habe schlussendlich mit JOSM den gelöschten Node wiederhergestellt und das Nagelstudio auf den alten Bettenladen-Tags aktualisiert: changeset/105407715

E schöne Tag,
habi

> I will proceed differently next time by importing only the new points I have created.

Please do so, as the way you did it now puts a lot of work on the volounteers tasked to clean up after you.

Dear KAWAMALA
You added all ways (that I checked) in this changeset with the tag `_building_=yes`, which is wrong and makes these buildings invisible on the map.
Can you explain the reasoning behind this?
Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

*And* introduced tag typos like `opening_ho=24/7` for node node/8745859331 which itself duplicates node/6388683286/.

From looking at recent changesets of nicojp he/she just seem to duplicate already present data and reference this with `@id=node/OldNodeID`.
I'd like to bring this up with the DWG to force nicojp to answer the questions before further editing...

Most of the data added is just a duplicate of what was already present.
I think this changeset should be reverted...

You also duplicated node/8745859340/history from node/4278875891/history

And you duplicated node/8745859336, which already existed as node/4701364876 since about four years.
What's the reason behind this?

Ciao nicojp

In this changeset you added nodes with several not understandable tags, for example node/8745859332 with
--
id=node/5841511660
internet_1=no
internet_a=wlan
--
Can you explain your reasoning?
It seems that you want to link one node with another.
Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

I corrected the typo in `etimology' to `name:etymology:wikidata`: changeset/93118323

I corrected the typo in `etimology' to `name:etymology:wikidata`: changeset/93118323

changeset/93118323

Ciao Janjko
In this changeset you tagged the roads with `name:etimology:wikidata`.
I corrected the typo to `name:etymology:wikidata`.
Have a good day,
habi

PS: I'm busy with https://bern.equalstreetnames.eu/ :)

Sehr cool gelöst!